I think it's so amusing that the liberal media berate FOX News for being biased while they are just as biased or worse. (I say they're significantly worse.)
From The New York Times:
Four years ago, the leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus began looking for a television outlet to co-sponsor and broadcast a presidential debate to address the concerns of minority voters.
Only one news channel made an acceptable proposal, and an unlikely channel at that: Fox News, in what some Democrats viewed as an effort to associate itself with a group that could help it make good on its claim of presenting “fair and balanced” news coverage.
But now that relationship is being shaken by the decision of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to shun the debate, a move that has exposed fault lines among two major constituencies of the Democratic Party. While the withdrawal by the candidates frustrated members of the black caucus, it mollified liberals who had objected to the involvement of Fox News, whose programming includes some of the most conservative and pro-Republican commentary on the air.
That sounds positively ridiculous.
Ooooh! FOX News programming has some conservative and pro-Republican commentary!
GASP!
When MSNBC, whose programming includes some of the most liberal and pro-Democrat commentary on the air, hosted a Republican debate, The Times didn't point out the lib network's extreme, unabashed bias.
It's just goofy for outlets like The Times to report as if the lib operations are fair and balanced while FOX is pure propaganda.
Can they really be that out of touch with reality? Are they really in such a dramatic state of denial?
The sensitivities surrounding the issue were evident this week when a spokeswoman for Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said Mr. Richardson would not participate in the debate, which is scheduled for September. But only a few hours later, the spokeswoman phoned the reporter to say that she had misspoken, and that Mr. Richardson had yet to decide. In the interim the reporter had sought a response from the caucus on Mr. Richardson’s apparent withdrawal.
Meanwhile, members of the caucus have been pushing back, with press secretaries for caucus members getting “talking points on how to cast the debate in a positive light,” as one staff member explained it.
The caucus is bent on salvaging what remains of the debate, and of a relationship that has produced other benefits. Not only has Fox given over precious air time for the debate, but an examination shows that its parent company, News Corporation, has also taken other steps to reach out to the group’s constituency, including making campaign donations to the caucus and its members and creating internship programs at predominantly black colleges.
It sounds like News Corporation has done a lot more than other companies to prove itself to be a fair and balanced operation.
The Democrat candidates, like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama look like fools for refusing to participate in a debate hosted by FOX.
As Jay Leno joked, if the Dems can't handle FOX, how can we trust them to handle the terrorists?
Sure, they're just pandering to the fringe wacko Lefties that pull their strings; but what does that reveal?
It reveals that they're puppets.
By shunning the FOX debate, the Dems look terribly weak.
...[M]r. Edwards, Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton announced that they would not participate in the latest debate co-sponsored by Fox and the caucus.
Mr. Edwards, at least, cited what many Democrats had long said privately but had been unwilling to say aloud, given Fox’s large megaphone: that the network is neither fair nor balanced, but tilts right. Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton chose to characterize Fox in withdrawing.
HAHAHAHA
"Mr. Edwards, at least, cited what many Democrats had long said privately but had been unwilling to say aloud, given Fox’s large megaphone: that the network is neither fair nor balanced, but tilts right."
That is so lame!
And is The New York Times fair and balanced?
Where does it tilt?
Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are cowards and panderers.
They act on personal political expediency, not principle.
...While Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware said this week through a spokesman that he would be there, he may not have much company; representatives for two other Democratic candidates, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, did not respond to messages asking whether they were in or out.
It would be insane for Biden to refuse to participate in a debate aired on FOX.
Biden appears on FOX so often that I think he must have his own dressing room with his name permanently posted on the door.
He couldn't suddenly claim that appearing on a debate on FOX was the wrong thing to do, when he's on the network every week.
...Among the reasons Democrats have been willing to take on Fox News more stridently than before is the galvanizing of the left around its opposition to the Bush White House, especially its handling of the Iraq war. Meanwhile, Fox’s viewership declined last year, perhaps emboldening Democrats who may no longer see it as having quite the reach it once did, especially with Congress now in the control of the Democrats.
If The Times wants to play with ratings numbers, it should note that FOX is the highest rated cable news network.
FOX most certainly has a reach that is far superior to any other cable news outlet.
That's a really silly suggestion to say that Dems may realize that FOX doesn't have "quite the reach it once did."
If a candidate wants to be seen, FOX is the place to go. No doubt about it.
Even Biden is smart enough to recognize that.
And what about The Times and its reach? It's readership has plummeted. I guess it doesn't have "quite the reach it once did." Actually, it's not even close.
No comments:
Post a Comment